State GOP resolves to get rid of them as a suit tries to block their adoption.

The NGSS standards are a nationwide attempt to improve science education in the US, and they have been backed by organizations such as the National Research Council, National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. But because they include the mainstream, science-based views on evolution and climate change, the standards faced public opposition in Kentucky that forced the governor to intervene to get them approved.

A handful of other states have adopted the standards. The most surprising is Kansas, which has an awkward past when it comes to science education. The state booted evolution from its science standards at least twice in the last few decades. But Kansas' approval of the NGSS standards may have been the calm before the storm. Since that, the state Republican Party has called for their withdrawal, and now a lawsuit has been filed that claims the standards' focus on natural causes will violate students' religious freedom.

Earlier this month, the state's Republicans passed a series of resolutions regarding education. In general, these resolutions (which targeted basic literacy and math education in addition to science) focused on the loss of local control involved in adopting standards that were developed by national organizations and meant for widespread use. In fact, the GOP would like to "prohibit adoption of any standards that require the state to cede any measure of control over their drafting and revision." These mention the NGSS standards by name, and the Lawrence Journal-World notes that "the standards were opposed by some because they treat evolution of species as a fact and offer no discussion of religious-based theories such as creationism or intelligent design."

Meanwhile, adopting the standards has gotten the Kansas State Board of Education and the state's Department of Education embroiled in a lawsuit. A group calling itself the Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE), along with a collection of parents and taxpayers, filed the lawsuit against the two government agencies, claiming that the new science standards are a form of religious indoctrination.

At issue is science's focus on identifying natural causes for past and present phenomena. This methodological naturalism developed in part as a result of scientists' inability to evaluate the probability of a miracle or compare that likelihood to a well-defined natural mechanism (plus, miracles don't suggest any obvious follow-up experiments). In the view of COPE and the other plaintiffs, this focus on methodological naturalism is an orthodoxy that will violate the constitutional prohibition on the establishment of religion.

According to the suit, questions of origins—of the Universe, our planet, and life itself—are inherently religious in nature. Given that, the suit claims "the state may not take a position as to whether a particular view of origins is or is not valid." Yet in the filing group's view, the standards do just that. "The F&S [Framework and Standards] take impressionable children, beginning in Kindergarten, into the religious sphere by leading them to ask ultimate religious questions like what is the cause and nature of life and the Universe." According to the suit, the standards are little more than an attempt to indoctrinate students with the stifling orthodoxy imposed by methodological naturalism.

It's a pretty novel legal argument, given that courts have shown little inclination to find that science education is religiously problematic.

It's not the only argument the suit makes. One of the lawyers who filed the suit is John Calvert, a long-time supporter of the intelligent design movement who has been involved in many past fights over science education in the state. And the suit itself includes the claim that teleological (goal-oriented) ideas about origins are just as valid as the mainstream scientific view. These arguments, however, turn out to be little more than a rehash of standard creationist claims: information in DNA must require a designer, and rapid speciation events are beyond the capacity of evolution to explain, for example.

The suit is unlikely to get very far, but it may end up having unintended consequences. The Dover decision on intelligent design technically only applies to the district in which it was decided, yet the decision was written so comprehensively and definitively that no other school districts have officially endorsed intelligent design since. There's always a chance this case could trigger an equally comprehensive decision that will banish some other creationist arguments from the legal sphere.

If you're interested in a firsthand look, the National Center for Science Education is hosting a copy of the suit.

470 Reader Comments

dammit, i'm from Kansas. between Kansas and Missouri it seems like we have all sorts of stupid people running our states. throw in Texas and we make a solid laughing stock out of state-run government. guess i really need to start voting.

The only thing this is likely to do is set a precedent that will make this line of argument useless in the future. It's the same problem that always stops these discussions. Both sides are fundamentally arguing different points. Religious people believe that Science is a religion, and scientists believe that it is a method used to explain the natural world.

Education is the only way around it, good solid education that these people are trying to deprive these children of.

As I said in the Kentucky article on this subject: evolution is only a small part of the new standards, so its idiotic to throw out all the new standards when creationist GOPers take issue with only a part of them.

Idiocracy is looking more and more like a plausible foretelling of the future.

The only thing this is likely to do is set a precedent that will make this line of argument useless in the future. It's the same problem that always stops these discussions. Both sides are fundamentally arguing different points. Religious people believe that Science is a religion, and scientists believe that it is a method used to explain the natural world.

Education is the only way around it, good solid education that these people are trying to deprive these children of.

I want to clear something up really quickly.... Science IS [the] method to explain the natural world. It isn't prejudice. It isn't emotional. If something is wrong it is wrong and if it is right, it's right until it's wrong. These people that fight against science like it's some kind of power don't understand.

At issue is science's focus on identifying natural causes for past and present phenomena. This methodological naturalism developed in part as a result of scientists' inability to evaluate the probability of a miracle or compare that likelihood to a well-defined natural mechanism (plus, miracles don't suggest any obvious follow-up experiments). In the view of COPE and the other plaintiffs, this focus on methodological naturalism is an orthodoxy that will violate the constitutional prohibition on the establishment of religion.

It would probably be most appropriate to specifically study the creationism/evolution argument in school as part of the process of studying the biology of life. Same too with the origin of the universe. Even if creationism is ascientific, the public debate in America is part and parcel of gaining an objective view not just of life itself, but of OUR life.

Perhaps when kids grow up not only with the information, but with the debate, they'll be better able to find their own way through all the bullshit.

Sure, but they should study that in debate or logic classes. Those are perfect venues to analyze the quality of the arguments (begging the question, argument from incredulity, etc.).

Every time something like this comes out it angers me. While I lean conservatively on several issues I can not for the life of me understand how anyone can push this sort of garbage. The GOP is so terrible you can't be conservative without people thinking you are a fool. There needs to be a Conservatives Against the GOP movement, because this crap needs to stop.

How are we supposed to compete with other nations when we are fighting each other arguing the basics of science?

The rest of the developed world, along with many developing nations have already traversed this and are roaring to surpass our education.

When my family moved to the states (from Iran) both brothers skipped a grade, my middle brother skipped two because their science and math skills were far ahead of their contemporaries. Coming from a place where there is no separation of church and state (and everyone is suffering) I ask" What happened to the separation of church and state in the US?

Have a required World Religion class, then they can spend most of the year teaching Christian beliefs. It will make all the Christians happy and keep the crazy out of the science classes. Problem solved.

Or ban religion in the classroom. Let parents tell their kids what they feel is the truth or send them to bible school.

How are we supposed to compete with other nations when we are fighting each other arguing the basics of science?

The rest of the developed world, along with many developing nations have already traversed this and are roaring to surpass our education.

When my family moved to the states (from Iran) both brothers skipped a grade, my middle brother skipped two because their science and math skills were far ahead of their contemporaries. Coming from a place where there is no separation of church and state (and everyone is suffering) I ask" What happened to the separation of church and state in the US?

A two-party system and entrenched power willing to exploit any idiocy to keep their foothold.

It would probably be most appropriate to specifically study the creationism/evolution argument in school as part of the process of studying the biology of life. Same too with the origin of the universe. Even if creationism is ascientific, the public debate in America is part and parcel of gaining an objective view not just of life itself, but of OUR life.

Perhaps when kids grow up not only with the information, but with the debate, they'll be better able to find their own way through all the bullshit.

They are free to discuss these topics in Theology class, but keep them the f**k out of my science class.

I have a proposal. I was thinking about China's special economic zones the other day, after hearing another piece of drivel spouted by the usual suspects. How about we create a couples of similar things here in the U.S. where a few of the poster child Red States can operate in a little bubble of their own and we see what happens. I know, I know.... so many things would make this difficult. But just imagine, if it could be done for one generation. How fast, and how far do you think they'd devolve into a Christian version of Somalia / Congo/ or DPRK? And, in this fantasy politics experiment, how much would the the fools still deny the failure of their entire ideology?

1) Creationism (no matter what you call it) isn't appropriate material for a science classroom. It currently presents no testable hypothesis, no experimental criteria, and no ideas that comport with observed reality.

2) There is no actual distinction between "micro" or "macro" evolution. It is a single process, observed on different time scales.

4) Every fossil found is, in a certain sense, a "transitional" fossil. Numerous distinctly transitional fossils have also been found.

5) If you are tempted to write "well it's only a theory" then you should stop right now. A "theory" in scientific terms describes a collection of observations, hypotheses, and evidence. A scientific theory does not get "promoted" to a law.

6) The theory of evolution does not address the question of abiogenesis. That's a different issue, with a number of different hypotheses currently being explored.

7) The theory of evolution by natural selection is currently the best-supported explanation we have for biodiversity on this planet. If you want to replace it with something else, you need to present a comparable quantity of evidence to back it up.

It would probably be most appropriate to specifically study the creationism/evolution argument in school as part of the process of studying the biology of life. Same too with the origin of the universe. Even if creationism is ascientific, the public debate in America is part and parcel of gaining an objective view not just of life itself, but of OUR life.

Perhaps when kids grow up not only with the information, but with the debate, they'll be better able to find their own way through all the bullshit.

The only class creationism belongs in is a religious studies course. It is not science.

Every time something like this comes out it angers me. While I lean conservatively on several issues I can not for the life of me understand how anyone can push this sort of garbage. The GOP is so terrible you can't be conservative without people thinking you are a fool. There needs to be a Conservatives Against the GOP movement, because this crap needs to stop.

... There is one. It's called the Democratic Party.

Oh, you thought the Democrats were actually leftist. Tehehehe?

In all seriousness, there is PLENTY of room for more traditional conservatism in the Democratic party. It's not very progressive at all, as a whole.

dammit, i'm from Kansas. between Kansas and Missouri it seems like we have all sorts of stupid people running our states. throw in Texas and we make a solid laughing stock out of state-run government. guess i really need to start voting.

Don't feel bad. A solid science education has never been a criteria for politicians. A bombastic personality, good hair and white, straight teeth are far more important. (Those, and a tow-sack full of money)

From an outsiders perspective; the best thing the US could do is ditch the whole "States having their own special snowflake laws" thing and simply set national laws for everything.

Double edged sword. Sure, national laws for this could solve this issue. Then again, on the eve of a federal government shutdown, you have to ask if such laws would even get past such hyperpartisanship and if so, would they be any better?

Since most public schools are barely teaching science anyways (or on a 5th grade level compared to the rest of the world) I cynically ask what difference does it make? Toss the science classes because they aren't being taught worth a darn otherwise. End of controversy.

This isn't about science -vs- religion. It's a straw horse and evangelicals know this. It's about keeping a stupid, dumbed down populace that will more readily accept the religion that's being shoved down their throats. History has shown this to be the fact.

Simple solution - have colleges test on actual scientific theories. And have science-based institutions only take kids from colleges that have have a rigorous scientific theory.

Very bad idea for Universities to recruit on grounds of ideology as opposed to ability to benefit. Some kids are bright enough to find other sources of information and succeed despite their schools, not because of these. Also I think you'll find many teachers in schools continue to teach with integrity regardless of school policy.

Excuse me, but... are these people going to war with the concept of cause and effect?

You might as well sue the DOT for publishing statements on stopping distances from speed. How do you know it's not 50MPH to 0MPH in zero feet -- so long as miracles are in play. This argument would invalidate teaching MATH.

Every time something like this comes out it angers me. While I lean conservatively on several issues I can not for the life of me understand how anyone can push this sort of garbage. The GOP is so terrible you can't be conservative without people thinking you are a fool. There needs to be a Conservatives Against the GOP movement, because this crap needs to stop.

... There is one. It's called the Democratic Party.

Oh, you thought the Democrats were actually leftist. Tehehehe?

In all seriousness, there is PLENTY of room for more traditional conservatism in the Democratic party. It's not very progressive at all, as a whole.

There is plenty on that side I don't agree with either.

The two parties are two sides of the same coin. Both flawed, severely. There is no party for people like me.

It would probably be most appropriate to specifically study the creationism/evolution argument in school as part of the process of studying the biology of life. Same too with the origin of the universe. Even if creationism is ascientific, the public debate in America is part and parcel of gaining an objective view not just of life itself, but of OUR life.

Perhaps when kids grow up not only with the information, but with the debate, they'll be better able to find their own way through all the bullshit.

You're confusing sophistry with science.

Have you ever done Debate? It has nothing to do with validity and everything to do with emotional persuasion and following/breaking rules at your discretion. That has fuck-all to do with STEM.